Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2012 2012 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 321 to 340 of 547 Records

• 2012 (2) TMI 408 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Stay petition - Since both sides agree for co-operation for verification of the document and resolving dispute of Cenvat credit, matter is remanded back to adjudicating authority and the matter shall be resolved by a reasoned and speaking order.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 407 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of Assessment under 147 after Intimation under 143(1) But no notice under 143(2) - Held That:- It is open to Revenue to issue notice u/s 147/148 even if notice u/s 143(2) was never issued or for that matter even if assessment u/s 143(3) had taken place.

  Income Escaping assessment 147 - Change of opinion - two business - Seprate books of account maintained - common expense pertaining to all unit claimed for deduction under 80IA - Held That:- whether appellant was entitled to deductions or not, already stood examined, considered and adjudicated by the Assessing officer in the previous years.Its not the case that assessee suppressed information or relevant facts were not disclosed neither it was based on report of audit party. Re-asseement is invalid

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 406 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  TDS - Assessee develops and markets 3D Solutions - sale of shrink wrap software - Royalty - NO Permanent Establishment(PE) - Held That:- In view of DIT Vs. Ericsson AB, (2011 - TMI - 207919 - Delhi High Court) consideration received by the Assessee for software was not royalty. The receipts would constitute business receipts in the hands of the Assessee. Admittedly the Assessee who is a non resident does not have a permanent establishment and therefore business income of the Assessee cannot be taxed in India in the absence of a permanent establishment. Decided in favour of revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 405 - ITAT, KOLKATA
  

  Deduction under 35(2AA) - Approval pending - Donation claimed in return at 100% and will increase to 125% after approval - Additional ground regarding deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) - Held That:- 35(1)(i) and section 35(2AA) operate entirely in different fields and are mutually exclusive. For claiming deduction under 35(2AA) amount should be paid to National Laboratory, University, and under a programme approved in this behalf by the prescribed authority. In the instant case the amount simply was lying with the IIT but it could not be used for scientific research. However for deduction under 35(1)(i) its not necessary that research to be carried in house. For additional ground we remand case back to CIT if CIT(A) allows claim under 35(1)(ii), AO to give effect and if does not allow the assessee’s claim entire deduction of 143 Laks to be withdrawn.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 404 - ITAT, COCHIN
  

  Penal Charges paid to Sister Concern towards cost of storage - AO: penal charges not a liability related to business of assessee - Held That:- If expenditure relates to commercial expediency its allowable. As far as penal rent is concerned it should be governed by the agreement entered between two parties. In the instant case, it was not shown by the assessee that the impugned liability was fastened upon it. Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 403 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Revision under 263 - lack of enquiry - Held That:- There is nothing on record which could show that Assessing Officer had inquired into financial charges paid on the borrowed fund for purchase of property which is forming part of closing stock. Assessing Officer has also not inquired into the method of valuation of stock. Assessing Officer has passed a summary order without looking into the issue of genuineness of transactions relating to sale and purchase of shares of G.R. Industries. - Revision justified.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 402 - ITAT, JODHPUR
  

  Penalty Proceedings - Survey - Incriminating documents found - Surrender of 22,32,000 in statement u/s 132(4) - Tax and Interest not paid while filing return but paid before completion of assessment - Held That:- Penalty cannot be imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the assessee has paid tax alongwith interest before imposition of penalty. Reliance placed on CIT Vs. Mahendra C Shah and CIT (2008 - TMI - 3705 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) Vs. Radha Kishan Goel (2005 - TMI - 10686 - ALLAHABAD High Court)

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 401 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Revision u/s 263 by commissioner - Deduction under 80IB - Failure to file audit report - Held That:- In view of 80IA(7) read with rule 18BBB, unless audit report of p/y is furnished no deduction is available. Therefore We have no hesitation in holding that the learned CIT was justified in holding the order of the AO as erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Decide against assesee.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 400 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  FERA Act, 1973 – violation of the provisions of Sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the Act by four companies - whether banks and their respective employees can be held guilty of abetting Companies for such violation – fresh LC opened even on failure to file BE for prior import - remittance of substantial amounts of foreign exchange against large number of confirmed L/Cs – failure to scrutinse defective import documents – Third bench of Tribunal held in negative – Held that:- The order passed by the Third Member, besides being cryptic, does not take note of all the materials which were on the record of the adjudication proceedings. Therefore, impugned order of the Tribunal based on the decision rendered by the third Member on the points of difference, should be set aside and the appeals be remanded back for hearing afresh – Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 399 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Petition filed for assessment of Bill of Entry by allowing exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD), under Notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 09.07.2004, and to allow the clearance of the goods – Held that:- Prayer for assessing the Bill of Entry by allowing the exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD), under Notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 9.7.2004, cannot be granted.

  However, respondents are directed to release the goods concerned, in respect of the above said Bill of Entry, subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the entire value of CVD. Release of the goods in question shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 398 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Companies Act 1956 - Petition filed u/s 433(e) & (f), 434 & 439 of Companies Act, 1956 seeking to wind up the Respondent-Company – non-payment of debt – Held that:- Petitioner has entered into transactions with the respondent Company and the respondent Company has been unable to pay its dues to the petitioner and therefore the respondent Company has made itself liable to be wound up – Decided in favor of petitioner.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 397 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Maintainability of appeal - Revenue is in appeal against order of rejection of appeal by Tribunal – Tribunal confirmed the order of first appellate authority regarding classification of `Bitulux Insulation Board' under Chapter Sub-heading 4407.10 at nil rate of duty - Held that:- Since the revenue has not questioned the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the first appellate authority dated 16.5.1997, setting aside the order of Asst Commissioner (Adjudicating Authority) it may not be open for the revenue to contend that the adjudicating authority was justified in issuing the impugned show cause notices and also the further confirmation of said notices vide orders passed by the adjudicating authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal. Therefore, revenue would not be entitled for any relief – Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 396 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of penalty – prompt reversal of Modvat Credit of duty paid on angles and bars, used in the construction activities on intimation by department – assessee contending it to be wrong Book Entry, corrected without utilizing the Cenvat credit - Held that:- We find no malafide reasons on the part of respondents to avail the Modvat credit with a fraudulent intention. We accordingly agree with the appellate authority that penalty imposed upon respondents is required to be set aside – Decided against the revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 392 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Refund of service tax claimed on expenses incurred on road and rail and port handling and terminal charges for export of goods – denial of claim on ground of lack of evidences – stay petition - Held that:- Neither impugned order speak about non receipt of the goods at the port for export nor there is any evidence of not incurring handling and terminal charges when export remained undisputed. In the absence of contrary finding exporter should not be denied the benefit through rigidity of procedure – Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 389 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Writ petition filed aginst order of Administrative Tribunal allowing stepping up of pay of employee to that of an admitted junior at each post and cannot be treated as once in a service time – employee have exercised this option twice at different posts - Held that:- No jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in is found in the order. Obviously, such stepping up can be done only in terms of the other conditions being satisfied in accordance with the rules.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 388 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of reassessment order – original order framed u/s 143(3) - assessee filed objections and contended change of opinion of A.O. – objections disposed by way of non-speaking order on 02.11.2010 – writ petition against the said order filed on 24.11.10 - reassessment order passed in meantime dated 19.11.2010 - Held that:-Once we have quashed the order dated 2.11.2010 on the ground of it being non-reasoned and does not meeting the basic requirements of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner should not be denied relief on the ground that the Revenue had proceeded in great haste and hurry to pass the reassessment order.

  In the present case, therefore, quashing of order dated 2nd November, 2010 would necessarily entail and as a sequitor mandate quashing of the reassessment order dated 19th November, 2010. A.O. is directed to pass a fresh order on the objections raised by the petitioner in terms of direction issued in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (2002 - TMI - 6100 - Supreme Court) – Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 387 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Recovery apprehended during the pendency of the appeals – writ petition filed - Held that:- In such case petitioner is directed to file stay petitions and recovery proceedings for realising the tax due from the petitioner will be kept in abeyance until orders are passed.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 386 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Depreciation on hotel building given on lease – non-disclosure of licence fees as income after A.Y. 1995-96 by assessee on ground of dispute between assessee and ITC Ltd – settlement agreement executed - A.O. made addition on accrual basis and allowed depreciation – search conducted in 2007 – A.O. disallowed depreciation on ground that hotel building was not being used for business – Held that:- CIT(A) deleted dis-allowance of depreciation on ground that for claiming the depreciation it is not necessary to use the asset by the assessee directly. The appellant's ownership over the asset on which depreciation is claimed is not under dispute and user of these assets in business is also not under dispute.

  Tribunal has also recorded that licence fee receivable should be included as "business income" and accordingly, depreciation on hotel building is to be allowed. Aforesaid is upheld – Decided against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 385 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Order issued by the CIT u/s 220(2A) waiving 50% of the interest due u/s 220(2) – appeal declined against such order – Held that:- CIT(A) order of granting partial relief is not interferred with however, having regard to the fact that the appellant is a widow and the financial constraints stated by her, we grant 12 equal monthly installments to clear the arrears.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 384 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Expenditure in respect of exempt Income - Investment in shares - Tax free Income - Held That:- In view of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing (2010 -TMI - 78448 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and Maxopp Investments Ltd (2011 - TMI - 208569 - Delhi High Court), we remand the matter back to AO to consider varios aspects.

  ---

1 ....131415161718192021........ 28